Multiple people reported shot near Mercy Hospital

Meanwhile elsewhere in the Chicago area today....

You know, the forgotten godforsaken parts of the city the press and government tries to ignore?

a reply to: ausername

Well, of course... we can't have a major city with some of the strictest gun controls and even outright bans in the country proving how worthless those laws are and how they do nothing to stop criminals from committing violent crimes with firearms, can we?

originally posted by: ausername
Meanwhile elsewhere in the Chicago area today....

You know, the forgotten godforsaken parts of the city the press and government tries to ignore?

The Chicago Jackass Site

Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 444
Shot & Wounded: 2235
Total Shot: 2679
Total Homicides: 522

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ausername

Well, of course... we can't have a major city with some of the strictest gun controls and even outright bans in the country proving how worthless those laws are and how they do nothing to stop criminals from committing violent crimes with firearms, can we?

Can't let a good tragedy go too waste can you.

You know the words to the second are in my sig. Wanna argue that you know what the framers meant better than I, or that they didn't write exactly what they meant? Because it says well regulate militia right there...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In my award winning one time role as a far left gun control advocating liberal... NO!

a reply to: whargoul

Nah, I'd just argue you don't WTF "well regulated" actually meant 250 years ago. I'll also argue that I wasn't trying to make this a gun control debate, merely stating the fact of why the government and media ignore the other 4,000 Chicago shootings per year to focus on stories like this one. Their control efforts failed, bottom line.

originally posted by: xuenchen
At least the ambulances don't have to drive too far 😎

Bad form ol chap, bad form

They are reporting only one shooter.

An eye witness may have heard shots from police officers at the suspect.

wgntv.com...

a reply to: whargoul

Wanna argue that you know what the framers meant better than I, or that they didn't write exactly what they meant? Because it says well regulate militia right there...

Are you offering to argue about personal opinions on the text, or are we allowed to use SCOTUS interpretations of the text in the debate?

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: xuenchen
At least the ambulances don't have to drive too far

Bad form ol chap, bad form

Missed the point because they actually rushed victims to a different hospital.

💥😬💥

STOP IT!!!!!

This is about an shooter at Mercy Hospital in Chicago.

wgntv.com...

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: whargoul

Wanna argue that you know what the framers meant better than I, or that they didn't write exactly what they meant? Because it says well regulate militia right there...

Are you offering to argue about personal opinions on the text, or are we allowed to use SCOTUS interpretations of the text in the debate?

Throw SCOTUS in. They argued in the 50's that sawed off shotguns were illegal because they are banned by the Geneva Convention. That would be a point in your favor showing the intent would be for the US citizens to be armed the same as the military (to protect you from the government). However, if we take that argument, where is your tank? Where is your MOAB? It just doesn't make sense, maybe you have a better case that will make me change my mind.

You need an AR-15 to protect you from the army? Not going to happen, they are going to drone you from an A/Ced trailer.

You need an AR-15 to protect your family from bad people? Why? .223 is going to go through the walls and endanger everyone else. Seems likely to me that we might agree that a pistol could be better in that case (I know they got through walls too).

You gonna hunt with it?

What about these monsters without remorse going on rampages. Sounds like the good guy with a gun didn't stop the bad guy with the gun in this case, he killed a cop! What do you recommend?

Thanks Obama!

a reply to: whargoul

So because SCOTUS has blessed selective prior infringements, everything should be on the table for infringing against? If a woman is sexually assaulted, is it then magically OK for anyone who wants a go to take one? Same basic principle as what you're advocating here. One chink in a right's armor and we throw the whole suit away?

a reply to: whargoul

no more than you can.

Now how about we all return to the topic?

a reply to: whargoul

That would be a point in your favor showing the intent would be for the US citizens to be armed the same as the military (to protect you from the government).

The other points in "my" favor being DC v Heller, McDonald v City of Chicago. Both of which dealt with the question of whether the 2nd was a collective right or an individual one. It's an individual one, which means the "well regulated militia" idea that one can bear arms only as it relates to belonging to some sort of government regulated body is wrong.

The rest of what you said is immaterial to a) the thread and b) the comment I was replying to. You went from wanting to discuss one point of debate to trying to bring in seven other points. Make a new thread if that's what you want to do.

a reply to: whargoul

Droning didnt stop the taliban did it? The afghans let them win.

Sources told WGN a doctor at Mercy Hospital was shot and was believed to be the intended target by a man she was in a relationship with who then went inside and continued shooting.

New rule:

If you are dating, no guns allowed. That should fix it.

a reply to: xuenchen

Right... more people are shot within 10 blocks of Mercy hospital every single day of the year, than were shot today at the hospital.

Amazingly, for the past 3 hours, Chicago television (ABC/CBS/NBC) has been covering this shooting non-stop/commercial-free. Constantly repeating themselves. It's like no one wants to be the first to stop covering this minor shooting.

a reply to: carewemust

I'm trying to figure out their point 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

I'm trying to figure out their point 😎

They are all looking at each others broadcasts, daring one to stop covering this mass human tragedy.